There's a Jesse Stern interview on GamePro talking with the scriptwriter for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 about a number of pertinent topics, including the controversial airport mission. "People have really strong reactions to the airport scene and it's been fascinating because we all wanted to make it something that would be upsetting, disturbing, but also something people relate to," he says of the airport scenario. "As for the effect it has on you, that's not for us to determine. Hopefully, it does have an emotional impact and it seems to have riled up a lot of people in interesting ways. Some of them good. Some of them bad." He also describes how testing that level went:

When we tested the level, it was interesting. Steve Mancuda, who ran a lot of the testing, said people would get angry or sad or disgusted and immediately wonder what the Hell was going on here. And then after a few moments of having that experience, they would remember that they were in a video game and they would let go. Every single person in testing opened fire on the crowd, which is human nature. It feels so real but at the same time it's a video game and the response to it has been fascinating. I never really knew you could elicit such a deep feeling from a video game, but it has.

"And then after a few moments of having that experience, they would remember that they were in a video game and they would let go."

So basically what they are saying is that after a few moments of the experience of being forced into a level where the player basically had no choice in what their character could do, people's immersion was broken and they just accepted that it was a shooter that was ineffectively trying to present some sort of moral choice to the player?

It seems like people forget that Splinter Cell: Double Agent not only presented a similar experience three years ago, but did so in a way that allowed the player TO take choice and had gameplay implications for their action or inaction. All IW did here is make a level where you gun down civilians. The idea that even an agent under cover would participate in such actions is so implausable that it made it pretty impossible to take anything further in the game seriously. The fact that the plot after that moment gets more absurd by the level doesn't help either.

I must be evil. Everyone in this thread is like "Well I didn't shoot the civilians like YOU YOU EVIL BASTARD". Well sorry, I was that guy. I admit it. First thing I did when you start that level was switch to the grenade launcher. I figured if I was going to do it I was going to do it well And I am pretty positive that they weren't actual people so its ok

No, people have had really strong reactions to no dedicated servers, average pings of over 100ms, no console commands, no custom maps, a smaller max of 18 players, no competitive mods, no mod tools, no ability to record, no ability to kick/ban hackers immediately, no server list, no free demo, and a $60 price tag!

I love how in that scene you have every opportunity to prevent the massacre, but the developers won't let you. You have a gun, the 4 terrorists are right there in front of you, you can easily mow them all down, and become a hero rather than a war criminal. But if you try that the game will stop and a big message will pop up saying "DO NOT SHOOT THE TERRORISTS!". Because the rest of the plot revolves around you taking part in the slaughter.

It's one thing to watch a movie where the protagonist behaves so stupidly you constantly want to punch him in the face. At least then you can feel superior. But I hate being forced to act it out.

What I find interesting is the similarities between the MW2 release and Halo: ODST.

Now, I'm no Halo defender. I can't stand the franchise and think it's incredibly overrated. But when ODST was released, the main gripe was "they're charging full price for this game...when it's just a 5-7hr campaign and re-hashed Halo 3 multiplayer?"

Then you have MW2 released, and it's being hailed as GOTY by many reviews. No one seems to notice that the campaign length is about as short as ODST's...and the multiplayer is pretty much the exact same as MW1. To be fair, the maps in MW2 are new (ignoring the map or two that are constantly redone for each COD release since COD2 or possibly earlier) and there are some new gameplay additions...but is that enough to warrant the difference in reception?

No they're not, they're huge in terms of the PC platform. Even dismissing the three or four ludicrous things in that spreadsheet being image spammed everywhere, there are still 8 significant things that hold up.

Suddenly it's "so little game (in a lot of ways.)" Odd, I have 7.5 hours in single-player, 10 in multiplayer and 10 in co-op. Sounds like a good amount of game to me. The game's probably been on for about 10 hours a day in my apartment, between myself playing, my roommate playing or our neighbors playing.

That's wonderful but it doesn't mean everyone else is having your experience.

But right, it's a terrible game. PC gamers know better. Sure, they went nuts over every prior CoD from Infinity Ward, and suckled at the teat of IW right until the "no dedicated servers" thing came out. Now it's "little game," even if it's the best thing they've done...

Generally when you give someone less product then charge more money for it people aren't going to be happy about it. There is no way for you to sugar coat that fact either. They gave less product than Call of Duty 4 and charged more money while simultaneously bungling the PR response to issues they could have smoothed over.

I cannot figure out why people paid so much money for so little game (in a lot of ways) I cannot see why people complain so much about a game they claim to not care about.

And by the way, the game has a lot to offer. It can't win with the closed minded, but most others who give it a chance seem to be enjoying it.

The differences between this game and the previous are miniscule. On every platform they really polished what they had. On the PC they took out lean, dedicated servers, and the barely-used modding ability.

Suddenly it's "so little game (in a lot of ways.)" Odd, I have 7.5 hours in single-player, 10 in multiplayer and 10 in co-op. Sounds like a good amount of game to me. The game's probably been on for about 10 hours a day in my apartment, between myself playing, my roommate playing or our neighbors playing.

But right, it's a terrible game. PC gamers know better. Sure, they went nuts over every prior CoD from Infinity Ward, and suckled at the teat of IW right until the "no dedicated servers" thing came out. Now it's "little game," even if it's the best thing they've done...

Like I said, I meant no disrespect. No need to get defensive, but the reason I singled the US out is because paradoxically you have this wonderful system in place, probably the best legal system in the world that protects the rights of its citizens and yet its like its been hamstrung...

That's because freedom of speech/expression also implies freedom to complain loudly and publicly when the pantywaists are offended by something. No legal action will be taken against IW for the level, people just want to yell and point fingers.

As for the level, I shot the civilians. Meh, it's just a game. It also seems like everyone purposely forgets what happens at the end of the level too, when Makarov shoots you. That's one of the biggest turning points in the (albeit weak) plot, and, at least IMO, justifies the mission's presence.

*sarcasm*Honestly, they should have put in a mission in which you storm the Activision and Infinity Ward offices and execute every dev and employee...you know, so that the player can get back at them in regards to the missing features, etc. Perhaps in a DLC that costs another $60.*end.sarcasm*